It is clear that when viewed through the perspective of logic and not pure emotion, that intervention in Syria is not legally, ethically or morally required.
The supreme law of the land, the Constitution, clearly records the rights and duties of the federal government, and ensuring global peace, promoting global quality of life, and preventing the deaths of tyrants and terrorists didn’t make the cut.
It is most likely the lead-in to a larger global war, which will involve three or more major world powers.
With China, Russia and Iran so heavily invested in the retention of the Assad regime, it is illogical to say that they will not fight our efforts to topple him, risking far more than a few cruise missile strikes.
At the end of the day, when asked if I would support an attack on Syria, I must reply resoundingly: “NO!” Maybe it is just me being a heartless conservative, but I would rather not open up another powder keg in the Middle East, which at best will only serve to waste more precious lives and resources and at worst will end up in the waste and ruin of potentially billions of people.
I don’t want to see the young men of my generation trained in the killing of their fellow man. I don’t want to see cluster bombs, bunker busters, RPGs, machine guns, tanks, planes and tactical nuclear weapons engaged in what will certainly come down to a war of attrition which the 330 million people of the US cannot win against the more than 1.2 billion people of a combined Russia, China and Iran…But like I said, it’s just me being heartless.
Zachary Stucki
Senior accounting major from St. George
Send letters to the editor to [email protected].
